JUDGMENT : 1. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows :- The complainant Smt. Savithramma (PW.12) is the youngest daughter of deceased Ningappa. For the last 14 years prior to the incident, she was residing along with her husband and children in her father Ningappa’s house at Lakkavalli village in Soraba taluk and was taking care of her parents. Her elder brother, namely, Shivalingappa, the father of the accused was working as a Principal in a college at Holalur and residing in Shivamogga, along with his wife and children. The accused, the son of her elder brother Shivalingappa, was pursuing his LLB. On the relevant date i.e., on 05.08.2009 at about 6-30 p.m, the accused came to their house, picked up a quarrel with the complainant and her father and demanded the deceased to return the electric cable wire taken by them or to pay Rs.700/- towards the cost of the said wire forthwith. The complainant and deceased assured the accused that they would pay the amount subsequent to harvest or at Deepavali. The accused did not accept the said explanation. He stated that he would kill them, went out of the house, brought an iron rod and assaulted on the head of the deceased. When the complainant went to rescue her father, she was also assaulted by the accused on her head with the same iron rod and caused injuries. The deceased and the complainant were taken to the Government Hospital at Anavatti. Thereafter, they were shifted to the Hospital at Shivamogga and once again they were shifted to Manipal Hospital at Mangaluru wherein the Doctor at Manipal asked the deceased to be taken back to his house. The deceased Ningappa succumbed to the injuries sustained, on the intervening night of 6th & 7th August 2009 at about 1.00 a.m. Initially, a case was registered in crime No.110 of 2009 of Anavatti Police station for the offences punishable under Section-324, 307 of IPC., and FIR was lodged before the jurisdictional Court. After the death of the deceased, the offence was altered to one punishable under Section-302 of IPC. Investigation was taken up and a charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections-324 and 302 of IPC. 2. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After the death of the deceased, the offence was altered to one punishable under Section-302 of IPC. Investigation was taken up and a charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections-324 and 302 of IPC. 2. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 26 witnesses, marked 22 documents along with 5 material objects. By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months, for the offence punishable under Section-302 of IPC. To undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 1 month for the offence under Section-324 of IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred. 3. Shri. R.B. Deshpande, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant contends that except the evidence of PWs. 12 & 19, who are close relatives and daughters of the deceased, there are no independent witnesses to the incident and hence, the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in a proper perspective and misdirected itself in convicting the accused. There is no material evidence to indicate that the accused had committed the offences alleged against him. That the statements of both the eyewitnesses cannot be believed. Even otherwise, the incident took place in a heated moment, spur of moment and there was no intention on the part of the accused to cause the death of the deceased. Hence, he pleads that the appeal be allowed and the accused be acquitted for the offences alleged against him. 4. On the other hand, Shri. P.M. Nawaz, learned State Public Prosecutor contends that both the eyewitnesses (PW.12 & 19) who have seen the incident have clearly narrated the manner in which the incident had occurred. Hence, he pleads that the appeal be allowed and the accused be acquitted for the offences alleged against him. 4. On the other hand, Shri. P.M. Nawaz, learned State Public Prosecutor contends that both the eyewitnesses (PW.12 & 19) who have seen the incident have clearly narrated the manner in which the incident had occurred. The accused himself came to the house of the complainant and deceased, picked up a quarrel with them and thereafter he went out of the house, brought an iron rod and thereafter assaulted the deceased and injured the complainant and hence, it cannot be said that the incident occurred at the spur of the moment, without any premeditation. He submits that in view of the substantial material evidence led in by the prosecution, no fault could be found in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court and hence, he pleads for dismissal of the appeal. 5. Heard learned counsels and examined the records. The points that arise for consideration are as follows : (a) Whether the Trial Court was justified in accepting the evidence of the eye witnesses? (b) Whether the order of the Trial Court is perverse and hence calls for interference? 6. PWs.1 to 10, 13 to 16 & 22 have turned hostile to the prosecution case. PW.11 is the constable who handed over the dead body to the relatives of the deceased and thereafter produced the clothes (MOs 1 to 3) worn by the deceased before the investigation officer. PW.17, 18 & 20 are the relatives of the deceased and circumstantial witnesses. PW.21 is the Doctor who conducted the postmortem over the dead body of the deceased and also examined the deceased, when he was alive as well as PW.12, the injured-complainant-eyewitness to the incident. PW.23 is the ASI., who recorded the statement of the injured-complainant (PW.12). PW.24 conducted the further investigation and filed the charge sheet. PW.25 is a Scientific Officer who submitted a report in terms of Ex.P.18. PW.26 is the Police Sub-Inspector who initially registered a case against the accused and conducted part of the investigation. PW.12 and PW.19 are the eyewitnesses to the incident. 7. Smt. Savithramma (PW.12) is the injured-complainant and daughter of the deceased. The accused is the son of her elder brother. PW.26 is the Police Sub-Inspector who initially registered a case against the accused and conducted part of the investigation. PW.12 and PW.19 are the eyewitnesses to the incident. 7. Smt. Savithramma (PW.12) is the injured-complainant and daughter of the deceased. The accused is the son of her elder brother. In her evidence, she has narrated that she and her husband were staying in the house of her deceased father and on the date of the incident, the accused came to their house, picked up a quarrel with her father, demanded her father Ningappa to return the electricity cable wire used by them or in the alternate, to pay Rs.700/-. He insisted that the amount be paid to him forthwith. The deceased and the complainant told him that the said amount would be paid to him after they receive the amount from harvesting the crops or at the time of Deepavali. He did not agree to the same. There was heated verbal altercation between the deceased and the accused. Thereafter, the accused went to his uncle’s house, brought the weapon-iron rod (MO.4) and assaulted on her father’s head. When she went to rescue her deceased-father, the accused also assaulted over her left head with the same iron rod. In the interregnum, her younger sister Vijayalakshmi (PW.19) who was also present at the scene of offence, tried to rescue them. The accused pushed her and went away from the spot. The deceased and the complainant were shifted to the Hospital at Anavatti, wherein the Doctor (PW.21) treated both of them and referred them to the Mc.Gan Hospital at Shivamogga. At Shivamogga, the deceased was partially treated and referred to Manipal Hospital, Mangaluru for treatment. The Doctor at Manipal Hospital, advised them that nothing further could be done and requested them to take back her father to their house. Thereafter, the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained on the intervening night of 6th and 7th August 2009 at about 1.00 a.m. Nothing worthwhile is elicited in her cross-examination to disbelieve the evidence of this injured-eyewitness. All the suggestions made to this witness have been denied. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no reason for us to disbelieve her evidence. 8. Vijayalakshmi (PW.19) is another eyewitness to the incident. She is the grand daughter of the deceased. All the suggestions made to this witness have been denied. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no reason for us to disbelieve her evidence. 8. Vijayalakshmi (PW.19) is another eyewitness to the incident. She is the grand daughter of the deceased. She has categorically deposed that since she was pregnant, she had been to the house of PW.12 wherein her grand parents were also residing. She delivered a male baby, three months prior to the incident. On the date of the incident, i.e., on 05.08.2009 at about 6.00 p.m., the accused came to the house and started demanding money from her deceased grandfather. There was a verbal altercation between the deceased and the accused. At that time, she was standing near the door of the house. The accused told her grandfather that without the money, he will not return and pulled her grandfather’s hand and went away. He came back with an iron rod and assaulted on the head of the deceased, in terms of MO.1. When her aunt (PW.12) came to intervene and tried to rescue the deceased, the accused also assaulted on her head with the same iron rod and when she (PW.19) tried to rescue them, the accused ran away by pushing her. She deposed that the accused had assaulted the deceased with an intention to commit his murder. In the cross-examination, nothing worthwhile was elicited to discard the evidence of this eyewitness. 9.(a) According to the evidence of these two eyewitnesses, on the date of incident, initially there was a verbal altercation between the deceased and the accused. The accused had been to the house of the deceased and demanded the deceased to return the electrical cable wire or to pay Rs.700/- forthwith, in lieu of the wire. Since the deceased expressed his inability to pay the same to the accused, he went out of the house of the deceased, again came back with the weapon-iron rod, entered the house of the deceased and assaulted the deceased and PW.12 with the iron rod. Both PW.12 & 19 were present at the scene of incident and witnessed the assault made by the accused on the deceased and PW.12. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the evidence of these two eyewitnesses is corroborative and there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence. Both PW.12 & 19 were present at the scene of incident and witnessed the assault made by the accused on the deceased and PW.12. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the evidence of these two eyewitnesses is corroborative and there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence. (b) The contention of the appellant is that the so-called eyewitnesses are related to the deceased and therefore, they are not trustworthy witnesses. On the other hand, the same is disputed by the learned State Public Prosecutor, who relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kamta Yadav and others vs. State of Bihar (2016) 16 SCC 164) and contends that if the witnesses are trustworthy, their evidence has to be accepted, even though they are related to the deceased. (c) The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid judgment, in paragraph-13 has held as follows : “13. We have already narrated the deposition of the witnesses in brief. There are six eyewitnesses and three of them are injured witnesses, which is a weighty factor to show the actual presence of these witnesses at the scene of occurrence. Moreover, the credibility and trustworthiness of all these eyewitnesses could not be shaken by the accused persons. Once it is found that these witnesses who are eyewitnesses, were present and they have truthfully narrated the incidence as it happened and their depositions are worthy of credence, conviction can be based on their testimonies even if they were related to the deceased. The only requirement, while scrutinizing the interested witnesses, is to examine their depositions with greater caution and deeper scrutiny is needed, which exercise has been done by both the courts below. In fact, when the learned counsel for the appellants was confronted with the aforesaid factual and legal position, he could not even provide any answer to the same”. Having heard the learned counsels, we are of the view that the evidence of the eyewitnesses cannot be rejected, merely on the ground that they are related to the deceased. Their evidence has been scrutinized with great caution. Having considered the evidence of eyewitnesses, we are of the view that they have truthfully narrated the incident, as it happened. Therefore, their deposition is worthy of acceptance. Under these circumstances, such a contention cannot be accepted. 10.(a) Dr. Their evidence has been scrutinized with great caution. Having considered the evidence of eyewitnesses, we are of the view that they have truthfully narrated the incident, as it happened. Therefore, their deposition is worthy of acceptance. Under these circumstances, such a contention cannot be accepted. 10.(a) Dr. Devaraj K.B (PW.21) who conducted the postmortem over the dead body of the deceased has stated that at the time of examination of the deceased, he was disoriented and was semi conscious. He found that there was a lacerated wound of 8 x 1 cm over the mid part of the frontal bone and fresh bleeding was seen. He has noticed a sutured wound with 5 sutures over the right temporal region of 8 cms length and on opening of the wound, he found a fracture of the right temporal bone which was comminuted type of fracture and along the fracture line, heamotoma was seen. The duramaters were ruptured. Extra dural, sub dural, sub arachanoid hemorrhage was seen in the frontal region. On cross section of the brain, intra cerebral heamotoma measuring 3.5 x 8.5 cm involving right frontal temporal and parietal lobes along with multiple hemorrhage spots were also seen in the right frontal temporal and parietal lobes and also in the ventricles. He has submitted his report in terms of Ex.P.14 and categorically stated that the death was due to the injury to the vital organ the brain, as a result of head injury. (b) He has also examined Savithramma, the injured-complainant (PW.12) and found that there was a lacerated wound of 6 x 1 cm over the vertex of the skull bone and there was fresh bleeding present. Accordingly he had issued the wound certificate in terms of Ex.P.15. (c) The overt acts, as stated by the eyewitness and the injured witness match the medical evidence. The injuries, as noted by the Doctor are, as noted by the eyewitnesses. Therefore, the medical evidence supports the case of prosecution. 11.(a) The appellant relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Randhir Singh vs. State of Punjab ( AIR 1982 SC 55 ) and Hari Ram vs. State of Haryana ( AIR 1983 SC 185 ). We have considered the said judgment, wherein, there was an altercation between the father of the accused and the deceased. We have considered the said judgment, wherein, there was an altercation between the father of the accused and the deceased. In such circumstances, the Supreme Court was of the view that since the accused was a young college going boy, the offence was altered from 302 to 304 Part-II. The facts in the instant case are different. Here, the accused has committed the murder of the deceased who is none else than his own grandfather. That was not the case in the aforesaid judgment. Furthermore, the accused herein has assaulted on the head of his father’s sister. Therefore, the intention on the part of the accused could be clearly made out. (b) The next judgment relied on by the counsel is in the case of Harjinder Singh vs. Delhi Administration ( AIR 1968 SC 867 ) and Chamru Budwa vs. State of MP (AIR 1954) SC 652), wherein, conviction was altered for a lesser offence under Section-304, Part-I. The reasons assigned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, was that there was no definiteness that the accused aimed the blow at a particular part of the body knowing that the same would cut the artery. Under the circumstances, the offence was reduced to a lesser offence. In the instant case, the assault made by the accused was on the head of the deceased, which is a vital part of the body. It was not an innocent assault. It was deliberate. The intention of the accused, right from the inception, was to assault on the head of the deceased. Hence, the said judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. (c) The next judgment relied on by the learned counsel is in the case of Jagrup Singh vs. The State of Haryana ( AIR 1981 SC 1552 ) and Jagtar Singh vs. State of Punjab ( AIR 1983 SC 463 ), wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that since the assault made by the accused was in the heat of the moment and without any premeditation, the case could be covered under exception-4 of Section-300 of the Code. The facts in this case are entirely different. The material on record would clearly indicate that there was an altercation-quarrel that took place between the accused and the deceased. The facts in this case are entirely different. The material on record would clearly indicate that there was an altercation-quarrel that took place between the accused and the deceased. The accused went outside the house of the deceased, went to his uncle’s house and comes back to the house of the deceased, with the weapon iron rod (MO.4). He assaults him on the head and also on PW.12 and therefore, it cannot be said that such an assault was in the spur of moment and without premeditation. The statements of the witnesses would clearly indicate that there was a clear design in the mind of the accused to commit the murder of the deceased, therefore, he went out of the house to bring the weapon. (d) He further placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Jawahar Lal and another vs. State of Punjab ( AIR 1983 SC 284 ). There also, the offence was modified from Section-302 to 304-II, in view of the fact that the deceased in that case was not a party to the quarrel and there was no attempt to assault the deceased. The deceased was a third person who had nothing to do with the quarrel. Herein, the deceased was a party to the quarrel. His object was to murder his grandfather. There was no mistaken notion. It was pre-meditated. Therefore, this judgment would not be applicable. 12. In the present case, the assault was committed by the accused on his very own grandfather who was aged 80 years. There was absolutely no necessity for him to commit the murder and that too for a paltry amount of Rs.700/-. The prosecution has proved that there was verbal altercation between the accused and the deceased about payment of Rs.700/-. Even then, the accused did not stop there. He went out of the house of the deceased to the house of his uncle, comes back with the weapon/iron rod (MO.4) and assaults his very own grandfather on the vital part of the body, namely, on the head. If there was no intention on the part of the accused to commit the murder of his aged grandfather, he would not have come back with the weapon. He even assaults his own aunt (PW.12), his father’s sister, who tried to intervene and rescue the deceased. If there was no intention on the part of the accused to commit the murder of his aged grandfather, he would not have come back with the weapon. He even assaults his own aunt (PW.12), his father’s sister, who tried to intervene and rescue the deceased. Therefore, the assault made by the accused would clearly indicate that he had a design in his mind to commit the murder of the deceased. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the offence committed by the appellant could be reduced to one under Section-304, Part-II. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered by holding that the Trial Court was justified in accepting the evidence of the eyewitnesses. Consequently, point No.2 is answered by holding that the order of the Trial Court cannot be said to be either perverse or that it calls for interference. 13.(a) Learned counsel for the appellant contends that subsequent to his arrest, the accused pursued his studies in law and passed out as a law graduate. That the incident occurred in a spur of the moment. Since there was a single blow, there was no premeditation on the part of the accused to commit the murder of the deceased. As the accused was a young man aged 21 years at the time of incident, a lenient view may be taken. (b) We have considered the said contention. Completion of his law degree is of no significance, in view of the offence committed by him. This is a case where the appellant has committed a cold-blooded murder and that too, of his very own grandfather who was aged almost 80 years and also assaults his own aunt. The mind of the appellant can be deduced from the manner in which he has committed the offence. Only because the cable wire or its equivalent value of Rs.700/- was not paid to him immediately, he had decided to commit the murder of his very own grandfather. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention that only because he has completed his Law degree, he must be set free or that the sentence or offence must be reduced. Completion of his law degree is of no relevance, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and his conduct. 14. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention that only because he has completed his Law degree, he must be set free or that the sentence or offence must be reduced. Completion of his law degree is of no relevance, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and his conduct. 14. On re-appreciation of the entire material on record, we are of the view that there is no error or perversity committed by the Trial Court in appreciating the evidence on record. The reasons assigned by the Trial Court are just and proper. There is no perversity in the order of the trial Court. We find no good ground to interfere with the well considered judgment of the Trial Court. Therefore, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.09.2012, passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Shivamogga in SC. No.75 of 2011 is affirmed.